-LRB- CNN -RRB- -- A copyright dispute over royalties from an acclaimed film , `` Raging Bull , '' can go the distance after the Supreme Court on Monday allowed a lawsuit to move ahead .

The appeal deals with a 1963 book and screenplay on the life of former middleweight boxing champion Jake LaMotta , who wrote it with his childhood friend and business partner , Frank `` Peter '' Petrella . LaMotta 's story was made into the 1980 movie , starring Robert De Niro .

The justices , by a 6-3 vote , concluded Petrella 's daughter did not wait too long to make her claims against Metro-Goldwyn Mayer , which made and distributed the Academy Award-winning drama . The case on the merits will now be heard in lower federal courts .

Entertainment companies will likely be affected financially by the ruling . Earlier courts had limited similar lawsuits , often filed many years after movies , plays , and television shows first premiered , by the estates of actors , writers , and producers .

With new electronic outlets emerging for a range of entertainment and literary properties , those companies may have to rethink their strategy when negotiating not only rights to the original creative property , but such retooled content as merchandising , spinoffs , and video games .

The underlying issue was a lot more dry and technical than the film itself : equitable defense and tolling for remedies in civil copyright claims .

That was apparently enough to temper the court 's creative streak in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's majority opinion -- no pop culture references to showbiz or sports ; no clever rhetoric about this being a `` knockout '' legal fight ; and no justice who would admit ever seeing the acclaimed film .

At issue is whether rolling time limits in filing copyright infringement lawsuits applied in this case . She claimed ownership over the original screenplay and the subsequent rights to the story . Her father died a year after the movie 's release .

Federal copyright law gave Paula Petrella the sole right to renew the copyrights before the term expired , which she did in 1991 .

But her lawsuit was not filed until 2009 . MGM Studios and 20th Century Fox -- the movie 's distributor -- say that violates the established legal principle of `` laches , '' which bars most claims that are unreasonably delayed , on the theory it would unfairly burden the adverse party .

Both sides also dispute what ownership rights the studio retained after the elder Petrella 's death , and which were subsequently returned to his daughter . Paula Petrella claims she is the sole owner of the book and the original screenplay , and that the subsequent film infringes on those copyrights .

She seeks damages dating back three years from the filing of the lawsuit , and an injunction on further distribution of the work without compensation . Her lawyers claim the delay over years was caused by fear of retaliation , lack of money to file the suit , and being told by the studio that `` Raging Bull '' was no longer making money .

The federal government backed her , at least in part .

MGM and Fox say they have invested heavily to convert the film to formats such as DVD for home viewing , and for overseas distribution . The companies say having an open-ended period to file copyright claims makes it hard to make future business decisions .

But Ginsburg , writing for the court , concluded the studio had the weaker argument .

`` If the rule were , as MGM urges , ` sue soon , or forever hold your peace , ' copyright owners would have to mount a federal case fast to stop seemingly innocuous infringements , lest those infringements eventually grow in magnitude , '' she said .

The three-year limitations period `` allows a copyright owner to defer suit until she can estimate whether litigation is worth the candle . She will miss out on damages for periods prior to the three-year look-back , but her right to prospective injunctive relief should , in most cases , remain unaltered . ''

Ginsburg added , `` Allowing Petrella 's suit to go forward will put at risk only a fraction of the income MGM has earned during that period and will work no unjust hardship on innocent third parties , such as consumers who have purchased copies of ` Raging Bull . ' ''

Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy , along with Chief Justice John Roberts dissented .

Copyright experts say the high court 's ruling will make it easier to press decades-old copyright claims .

`` Hollywood has an insatiable appetite for recycling old film content , '' said William Kane , an attorney with BakerHostetler . `` Increasingly copyright ownership for much of this older content has now been passed down to the families and heirs of the original creators . And if the current owners did not sign over all their copyrights to the industry , you end up with potentially multi-billion dollar clashes of interest . ''

`` Raging Bull '' won two Oscars , including best actor for De Niro , who portrayed the boxer .

LaMotta is 92 and not a party in the appeal . The fighter also known as the `` Bronx Bull '' held the middleweight title from 1949-51 .

The case is Petrella v. MGM , Inc. -LRB- 12-1315 -RRB- .

@highlight

The Supreme Court permits lawsuit to move ahead years after being filed

@highlight

The justices say daughter of book co-author did n't wait too long to make her claims

@highlight

She claimed ownership of the original screenplay and subsequent rights

@highlight

Entertainment companies are likely to be impacted by the ruling